I think there was a press event in NYC for Olympians where the athletes got to see the actual uniforms yesterday. That's why there apparently are several articles with similar quotes. Here's one from yahoo:
Does anyone feels like the bottoms on the mannequin and the bottoms the female athletes are wearing are different? Look at Athing Mu, fairly tall, so you'd think the cut would be more severe on her, but it's not even close to the mannequin photo. I looked at the Kenndy photo too. The curvature of the cut looks completely different.
I'm not even sure if the mannequin bottom was even the actual bottoms they released.
I think there was a press event in NYC for Olympians where the athletes got to see the actual uniforms yesterday. That's why there apparently are several articles with similar quotes. Here's one from yahoo:
The Yahoo article just adds credence to my previously-stated belief that Nike decided to release the original photo of that one particular piece of crotch-revealing women's kit - shown on an ebony-colored mannequin for most dramatic visual effect - for the express purpose of drumming up exactly the sort of publicity, outraged commentary, idle chatter, sniggers, smarmy jokes, controversy, column inches and media soundbites that have followed in the past week.
Nike honchos knew exactly how the public and media would respond to that photo. Nike staged, shot and released that pic the way it did precisely to provoke a negative response. Bad publicity is still publicity, after all.
What's more, when a big company such as Nike has a bout of bad publicity like this, it creates a perfect opportunity for prominent figures and journos to rush to the company's defense and start singing the company's praises.
Indeed, in this case, Nike's clever move has created a perfect opportunity for at least one prominent figure in women's track & field to publicly proclaim that she personally loves competing in the public eye "wearing as little clothes as possible."
From the Yahoo article:
Nike got scorched by the first social media brush fire of the 2024 Paris Olympics, and Olympians past and present are coming to the apparel giant’s defense.
A single image of one of Nike’s American track & field uniforms, modeled on mannequins, set off a wave of online criticism that the company and its athletes are now working to contain. The image, shown as part of the uniform reveal, showed a female bodysuit with a high-cut hip that critics derided as sexist.
Lost in the immediate furor of criticism was the fact that the high-cut bodysuit is only one of multiple options. Nike — and many of its athletes who hope to wear the uniform this summer in Paris — stressed that the high-cut bodysuit is one of multiple options available, including compression shorts and full-length bodysuits.
Gabby Thomas, who won a silver and bronze medal in sprint events at the Tokyo Summer Games, told Yahoo Sports on Tuesday...
...that regardless of the condemnation that social media users may hurl, there are Olympic athletes who simply prefer the tighter cut. “I love competing in the briefs, I love wearing as little clothes as possible..."
This is are all all part of a deliberate, orchestrated strategy by Nike. None of what's taking place is by happenstance. The endgame that Nike honchos were hoping for has panned out perfectly for Nike too. In fact, things might have turned out even better than the marketing genuises at Nike thought, hoped and dreamt.
Because the one takeaway from this saga that's going stick in everyone's minds for months and years to come is American Olympian Gabby Thomas' public announcement that she personally loves competing in view of huge crowds, cameras and worldwide television audiences wearing skimpy bottoms designed and cut to expose women's butt cheeks in the rear and draw attention to their crotches/pubic areas in the front.
This post was edited 6 minutes after it was posted.
Get the public outraged. Then have some prominent athletes try on a similar, but different uniform, and now the narrative is "what? I don't what you're talking about. It's fine".
The Washington Post has a fascinating story where some of track pros, even those not with , now all admit that Nike's Paris Olympic uniforms are great and there was nothing to be outraged about. The photo that Citius got its hands on and tweeted out just made the cut look weird.
Lululemon's Tara Davis-Woodhall did more than defend them. She called them beautiful.
“It was the picture that did no justice,” long jumper Tara Davis-Woodhall said. “I saw one today. They’re beautiful. They’re not like the picture. The cut does look a little bit different on that mannequin. They just should have had a second look with someone to choose that photo to post.”
as did New Balance's Gabby Thomas.
““The initial shock was warranted, but I think no one has anything to worry about.
"We could wear the men’s uniform if we really wanted to,” Thomas said. “I love wearing as little clothes as possible, just because you’re sweaty, you’re being really active and moving.So I love that we have the option to wear that.”
That's what I'm saying! The bottoms from the mannequin and the bottons these athletes are posing in are different.
They never had any of these athletes try on the bottoms with that extreme cut.
But the different photos don't show the same items of clothing.
The item of clothing on the mannequin in the photo released last week that created the big stir is a one-piece body suit.
I haven't seen any photos of that exact item of clothing on any athletes or human models yet. All the photos I've seen of athletes dressed in gear from Nike's new Olympic women's line show them in other selections from the line with bottoms that are cut differently.
If you've seen photos of real-live women in the one-piece bodysuit originally shown on the mannequin that generated all the buzz, please share a link.
This happens every year, if you don't believe me go back and look at the posts from April 2020. There is no way to make something as personal as clothing that's going to be liked by everyone. Also, U.S. athletes have always had clothing options. Each athlete literally gets the equivalent of a footlocker of gear. What is strange, the most important track meet in the world puts less emphasis on uniforms than a high school county meet. It is not uncommon to Olympic relays with athletes wearing different uniforms, albeit, the same color scheme. You even see athletes competing in jewelry with half their butt exposed in the Olympics.
Regardless of the cut, they are still hideous. The red and blue blend together and they just look like a weird purple.
That's the main problem. They totally ignored the white instead of making use of it. Everybody is focusing on the high cut women's uniform right now. By Paris that will change. They crammed too much red and too much blue together in ugly overboard fashion, especially with the men's uniforms.
Canada's versions were released yesterday to high praise. I'm sure the timing was not coincidental. Lululemon saw the backlash against the United States versions and wanted immediate contrast to their own:
Heather Wright has the latest on the backlash against Nike's Olympic women's track uniform and Lululemon's Team Canada kit.Subscribe to CTV News to watch mor...
But Lauren Fleshman said it was a costume born of patriarchal forces. So why are Gabby and Anna Cockrell and others doubling down on their own free will??
Poor Gabby. If only she was as smart as Lauren Fleshman. Just because Gabby has a degree from Harvard and a master's degree from UT doesn't mean anything. Also, she must be lying to save Nike since she's a New Balance athlete.
She claims it's just fine, but look at her photo and the photos from the release. Was it all "just the mannequin"? The bottoms don't look the same. The wedge angle on the released photos is definitely higher.
She claims it's just fine, but look at her photo and the photos from the release. Was it all "just the mannequin"? The bottoms don't look the same. The wedge angle on the released photos is definitely higher.
Thanks. But Katie Moon isn't wearing the same item in those photos. At all. Her post says as much: "I tried on the same style today."
Her claim that she "tried on the same style" is pretty ridiculous too. Coz Moon is clearly wearing two different two-piece ensembles where the tops and bottoms are "separates" independent of, and detached from, one another. Whereas the mannequin is wearing a one-piece body suit.
More to the point, the bottoms to the two-piece ensembles Moon is wearing are cut totally differently to the way the crotch and leg openings of the one-piece on the mannequin are cut. They're not even comparable.
The bottoms Moon has on in those photos look pretty ordinary to me. Whereas the bottom portion of the bodysuit on the mannequin looks way too revealing and like it would hurt to wear.
This post was edited 5 minutes after it was posted.
I haven't seen yet anyone explain how the patriarchy likes to spend so much time designing women's clothes. As much as men like women and admiring women we (most maybe not all but most) just aren't all that interested in designing women's fashions.
I haven't seen yet anyone explain how the patriarchy likes to spend so much time designing women's clothes. As much as men like women and admiring women we (most maybe not all but most) just aren't all that interested in designing women's fashions.
many of the most iconic designers of women's fashion are gay men.
RunRagged wrote: Thanks. But Katie Moon isn't wearing the same item in those photos. At all. Her post says as much: "I tried on the same style today."
Her claim that she "tried on the same style" is pretty ridiculous too. Coz Moon is clearly wearing two different two-piece ensembles where the tops and bottoms are "separates" independent of, and detached from, one another.
The one photo is literally captioned ‘The onesie’ is clearly one piece, there’s just a black line in the fabric. You’re letting bias influence what you see.
